Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 20, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
136383 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
In re KYANDRE BROOKS, a Minor. Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
_________________________________________/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Stephen J. Markman,
Petitioner-Appellee, Justices
v SC: 136383
COA: 283281
NEHEMIAH GREGORY, Washtenaw CC
Respondent-Appellant. Family Division: 05-000123-NA
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2008
order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of
granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. That court
shall treat the respondent’s claim of appeal as having been timely filed, reinstate the
appeal, and decide the case on an expedited basis. The respondent’s pro bono counsel
failed to file a claim of appeal within 14 days after entry of the order terminating parental
rights or a motion for rehearing in the trial court within the 14-day time period set out in
MCR 7.204(A)(1)(c), resulting in the Court of Appeals administratively dismissing the
respondent’s claim of appeal. Thus, the respondent was deprived of his appeal of right as
a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I join the order remanding this matter to the Court of Appeals. I write separately
only to observe that the Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) may wish to investigate
the conduct of respondent’s appellate counsel. On February 20, 2008, the Court of
Appeals dismissed respondent’s claim of appeal as untimely. The Court of Appeals
noted that respondent had “failed to file the motion for rehearing within 14 days of the
November 13, 2007 order terminating parental rights as required by MCR
7.204(A)(1)(c).” Respondent’s counsel argues that MCR 3.992(A) should control, but
his motion was untimely under that rule as well. This missed deadline not only
prejudices counsel’s client and the future of respondent’s child, but also Michigan’s
compliance with federal audit requirements pursuant to the current Child and Family
Services Review. For these reasons, the dismissal by the Court of Appeals warrants AGC
scrutiny.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 20, 2008 _________________________________________
d0617 Clerk